THE concerns of the two key major powers in the region, the United States and China, about each other came up at last weekend's Shangri-La Dialogue.
The Americans are worried about the challenge that a rising China poses to their interests in the region. In particular, they are concerned that when China talks about regionalism and community-building in East Asia, this is code for excluding the US from multilateral structures in which China plays a prominent role, said security analyst Adam Ward. They are also concerned over the lack of transparency in China's military build-up which they see as more than defensive in nature.
06 June 2008: Straits Times
By Goh Sui Noi, Senior Writer
THE concerns of the two key major powers in the region, the United States and China, about each other came up at last weekend's Shangri-La Dialogue.
The Americans are worried about the challenge that a rising China poses to their interests in the region. In particular, they are concerned that when China talks about regionalism and community-building in East Asia, this is code for excluding the US from multilateral structures in which China plays a prominent role, said security analyst Adam Ward. They are also concerned over the lack of transparency in China's military build-up which they see as more than defensive in nature.
The Chinese remain suspicious that the security alliances in the region - such as those between the US and Japan and the US and South Korea - are aimed at containing China. They would like to see these dissolved, noted Mr Ward of the British-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, organiser of the annual Shangri-La Dialogue.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates in his speech at the forum addressed the concerns of some in the region that the US presence was becoming less strong as its military was preoccupied with the Middle East.
He stressed that 'the United States is a Pacific nation with an enduring role in Asia'. Indeed, he placed the US squarely in the region, calling it a 'resident power' with sovereign territory in the western Pacific 'from the Aleutian islands all the way down to Guam'.
He said emphatically that even with a change in administration next year, US policy in Asia would continue to be based on its 'strong and enduring interests in the region'.
He also spoke out against exclusivity. Referring to the search for a new regional security architecture, he said 'it can only succeed if we treat the region as a single entity - there is little room for a separate 'East Asian' order'. The US intends to be part of the new architecture.
The Chinese would find his 'exclusivity' remark ironic, for they see the security alliances the US has forged in the region as exclusive. Chinese representative Lieutenant-General Ma Xiaotian in his address criticised such pacts, saying that they ensure the 'security of some countries at the cost of others'. He added that 'the security interests and concerns of all countries must be fully respected and accommodated'.
In a round-table discussion with journalists, Mr Gates said the US was watching China's military build-up closely and it would adjust its capabilities in the region if necessary.
It is in this context that the call for a regional security architecture that is open and inclusive has aroused China's suspicion anew of containment. Beijing University scholar Jia Qingguo asked Mr Gates during question-time: 'What kind of regional security structure are we talking about? Is it one of hierarchies in which you divide members (into) friends or allies and non-allies, or is it an equal kind of regional security structure with equal membership?'
He further asked what values the US defence chief had in mind for the new architecture, noting that there has been talk lately of values-based alliances.
Mr Gates' reply would offer little comfort to the Chinese. On US alliances in the region, he said: 'The closest alliances are clearly those between those societies and governments that share values. That does not preclude improving relationships and increased engagement with those where we have differences in terms of values or where we have differences even in terms of interests.'
But he did add that the new security framework should be based on inclusiveness and equality.
Professor Jia later told The Straits Times that it was 'short-sighted' to base alliances on values as it was not realistic.
'The real world is very complex, and different countries do things differently on issues of ideology and systems because of various reasons,' he argued.
To stress similar values as a standard for cooperation meant excluding some countries that were willing to cooperate. It would weaken the ability to tackle security challenges, he said.
While Beijing recognises that America's bilateral security alliances in the region contribute to stability, it is worried 'they may also be directed against China, and this causes China to be less secure and to be wary'. Prof Jia added that China advocates multilateral cooperation and not exclusive bilateral cooperation.
Professor Ralph Cossa, who heads the Pacific Forum of the American think-tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies, also thought it unhelpful to stress values-based cooperation.
'What we ought to be doing is stressing interests-based (cooperation). It is in our interest to have a cooperative, peaceful, stable China,' he said. 'You want China to rise within the architecture of East Asia, not contain it, not restrict it.' The question now was how the alphabet soup of overlapping multilateral groupings and alliances fitted together, he said.
Mr Ward of IISS noted that these components have evolved in response to the different sub-regional security dynamics. For example, the security challenges in North-east Asia are nuclear proliferation, ballistic missiles and state-to-state contingencies, while in South-east Asia the concerns are terrorism and transnational security threats.
He said that it would be overly ambitious to rush headlong into creating a highly centralised structure at this stage, given the different concerns, political systems, strategic cultures and priorities in the region.
The common view was that for now, there would be a layered architecture. This would comprise at the broadest level highly inclusive multilateral security forums such as the Shangri-La Dialogue and the Asean Regional Forum; sub-regional security groupings with more select memberships such as the East Asia Summit, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; functional groups that address specific challenges such as the Six-Party Talks and the Five Power Defence Arrangements; and the web of bilateral defence ties among Asia-Pacific states.
This layered arrangement is less than perfect. It would not be able to respond quickly to challenges, nor would it be good in anticipating problems, said Mr Ward. But it does provide a basis for moving the process forward.
Go to Shangri-La Dialogue homepage
